I read a recent comment on a blog discussion about St. Augustine. We all know that St. Augustine published things that, in hindsight, have proved unfortunate in how they have been received and used by the heterodox. That, of course, says nothing about how they have been understood by the Orthodox, or were, at least until the last hundred years or so (specifically since Orthodoxy’s supposed renewed contact with the West, by which we must mean, to be factual, it’s widespread Westernization – as illustrated by the very question at hand).
The comment tells us that we have mistakenly asked the question of whether St. Augustine is a saint. The commenter certainly has that much right. How dare anyone presume against mother Church in such a way. But if that punch is pulled, what comes next is a slap as the commenter tells us that the correct question is whether St. Augustine should have been sainted in the first place. Actually, I’ve put words in the writer’s mouth – he said it’s whether St. Augustine should have been considered a saint in the first place. But since that actually makes no sense, as if there is some hypothetical place from which the Church’s activity can be evaluated externally to herself, so we are left with the implicit question which actually then must contain a heterodox approach to ‘saintness’ – namely that a saint is someone the Church ‘makes’ as saint by proxy, by mere act of authority, and that’s a heterodox view. We’ll come back to this.
The problem with the whole question of should this person be a saint or not, is first that it presumes that individuals are up to these questions, that there’s a question at all – an implied hypothetical choice (hypotheticals don’t exist), and that such questions are ultimate ahistorical – that they’re philosophical in character and can be philosophically resolved. I’m saying that they’re inherently impious questions, since they presume against the Faith we have received, they contain presuppositions, in other words, that are anti-Orthodox and heretical. The Fathers have always spoken of questions that can have no answers, since the questions themselves are improper – and have (in St. Irenaeus, for example) considered them gnostic in that, instead of having the result the answerer intends – that of resolving a supposed issue, they result in a ‘raised consiciousness’ – change of consciousness – a movement away from a mind that is Orthodox to one that is dialectical, indeed pagan by default, protestant by proxy.
The appropriate question, in direct contradistinction to the cited statement, is not whether St. Augustine should have been considered a saint, but whether in fact he is a saint and, more to the point, how it is Orthodox people determine who to venerate. If the answer is not that we consult our church’s calendar (e.g. June 15th), our ikons, our venerations, and our fathers among the Saints, then we are not Orthodox. We are not being Orthodox. The one who led me into the Faith once counseled me that there are many counterfeit communities out there, masquerading as Orthodoxy, some perhaps even within the widely accepted affiliations. He advised that mutual recognition is not adequate to determine or recognize Orthodoxy. In fact Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy – it either is or isn’t, and if you take away anything from it though it has everything else, it isn’t Orthodoxy. We don’t get to decide whether we’ll venerate the Theotokos or whether we’ll fast, or whether we’ll use these scriptures but not others. There is an Orthodox way, and there’s everything else.
And among the things to watch out for, he counseled, is communities that add their own ‘saints’ to be venerated, or most especially take away saints that are venerated. If they remove names, my mentor said, run away – they aren’t being Orthodox. And I hold to this, despite all the wise guys on the web. There’s another problem with asking these impious questions. It is Orthodox, by default, to consider all other men saints. Do we not cross ourselves whenever we pass a cemetary? And why? Because we do not know but that a Saint’s body may repose there. Do we not cross ourselves in remembrance of any of our dead? And why? Because they may be saints.
But moreso, the fathers tell us to consider all men righteous compared to ourselves. There is something so very inappropriate about asking whether it’s really right to consider so and so a saint, or pious, or righteous. It is not for us to judge saints, but rather the saints will judge us. It is the great cloud of witnesses, deified, translated, transfigured, who properly witnesses our behavior, not for us, kicking around on the internet, or expressing our personal opinions at coffee hour or conferences, to question theirs.
Likewise, by default, we Orthodox do not presume to judge the piety of another at all. So if someone says, this man is pious, or that man is pious, who on earth is so arrogant that they will dare to become a doubt-caster. What kind of self-righteous pawn of Satan would accuse the saints. That’s what Satan does, you know. Do we really want to join in?
The point is all of this speculation is the very example of the worst of which St. Augustine has been accused. He always said he was offering speculation. Now those who would detract from him do likewise, justifying it because they are ‘fixing’ Orthodoxy. They are the epitome of what they condemn. Those who have dug a pit have fallen into it. It has become popular, with good reason, to attack Augustinism, and the gnostic heterodoxy or heterodoxization or gnosticization of Augustinists – more correctly to defend against their attack on the Church.
But in terms of our own thinking, it is an error to impute an analysis of Augustinists and Augustinism to St. Augustine, or demand that the Church somehow respond for how the words of one of its own have been used. After all, we might as well ask whether Christ should have been considered Lord, since he likewise, if not prototypically said things that Christians have used to attack Orthodoxy and undermine the continuity of the Church’s message. Indeed, such an analysis is already popular among those who rail against religion, against what they understand to be Christianity, and against who they understand to be Christians.
It is not saying too much to say that as you speak of St. Augustine, so you are speaking of Christ. Indeed, as much as you have done it to the least of his Saints, as much as you have persecuted the lesser of his holy ones, so you have persecuted Christ, and so you have railed against principalities and powers in ignorance. You judge those who will judge angels, and in the name of one who is their King. What folly.
We are not bound to take an erroneous use of one our own’s words and turn them about as a criticism of the Church, for that is what asking such a question does. In fact, that critical method is inherently gnostic and would be right at home on any third century gnostic’s sermon roster. Indeed, the anti-Augustines are practicing Augstinism in their anti-Augustinism. They have conflated person and operation. They have turned the Faith on its head, and committed treason against it. Lord have mercy.
The Orthodox way is to insist on understanding, indeed to persist in understanding, anything written or said by one of the Saints in an Orthodox manner, wherever even remotely possible. After all. St. Gregory Palamas draws heavily on De Trinitate, a book that makes me more than cringe in my futile understanding of it, for his own 150 Chapters and some of his sermons; St. Gregory sees what I don’t. To complain that one’s mind cannot handle this is not a claim on the truth of the Orthodox way, but is rather to confess one’s own sin, one’s own frailty, one’s own weakness – and when it’s a denial of that very principle, one’s own heterodoxy. That some faint and lose heart should not mean that the rest of us put a microphone in their hands and agree to collaborate on their failed persistence. The fathers, including St. Photius the great, champion of Orthodoxy against Augustinism, always treated St. Augustine’s word with reverence. Who, says St. Photius, dares to impute any impious teaching to this man, for in doing so you would impute it to the Church.
Some have said it is because the fathers were ignorant – they didn’t have all of St. Augustine’s writings, and if they did surely they would have railed against them. That is a heresy folded into a heresy. First, we know those from of old who claim to be wiser and better informed than the fathers, to have the knowledge, the insight, and the analysis they didn’t have. They are our enemies of old, the gnostics. Out with you, counterfeiters – show your colors! You have shown them. We know these words, and the fathers also have condemned them already, before you ever grew your first beard hair. St. Irenaeus catalogs this in his encylopedia of gnosticism, against heresies, as a sure sign of gnosticism. We also know this hypothetical chatter – “surely if…” – the fathers have condemned this also – St. Maximus tells us that hypotheticals don’t exist. These are vain imaginings of those who try to step outside of history and play God. The impiety. If the fathers had what you have, you say, they would think and speak as you do, you say.
The worst of these crimes is pride. Immense, boundless pride. It is not for the fathers to learn how to think and speak from you, in some hypothetical world of philosophy; it is for you to learn how to think and speak from them. More correctly, to think and speak as they did. And they have proclaimed Augustine saint, and pious, and righteous, and a champion of the Faith. Who are you? Truly St. Photius is right – you speak against the Church, against the Faith, against the possibility of Faith. You substitute for the Faith your own speculations, your own puffed up self image, and your own philosophy. It is the ultimate act of Protestantism – we need to carry you around with us now, as a new kind of pope, a new bible, to keep us correct. You have assaulted the Church to divide it with the very cleaver of dialectic you condemn, pitting saint against saint, father against father, apostle against apostle. You are Marcion. Repent. Your correctness exceeds that of God himself.
To hell with that kind of correctness. I’m with St. Augustine, and St. Photius, and St. Maximus, and St. Irenaeus, and all the desert fathers who call us to account for our pride, before I am with any religion or Church constructed on paper or in a blog, picking piecemeal through the Faith like litter, building a homonculus religion out of personally preferred parts. But that’s just it – I’m not important – Christ is with St. Augustine – that’s important. But you do take serious risks in trying to divide any of us as you do: if you persist in this way, then whatever Faith you are asking me to subscribe to, I reject on my life. I’m am of the Faith of St. Augustine, and must be, if I wish to be of the Faith of Christ. I’ll tell you where Augustinism thrives – it is never so pronounced among the heterodox as it is among the Orthodox who strive to outdo them in their intellects. Better right now to embrace them all as brothers than to speak againt one of our heroes in this way. Better to call everyone pious, and every impiety piety, than to attack Christ in this way. In a world of absurdity, let Christ be true, though every man of us be made a liar.
That’s where I come down on it. Some of you will not appreciate it. That’s fine. The beatings will continue. And the persecuted Saints will endure it. And Christ will wreak his retribution at the right hour. Add me to your list, if you want. I am not more worthy than my Master, or than any of these. I tell you, if St. Augustine is persecuted, put me down as one of his. Let the cock crow, I will not deny him. The Holy Spirit has come. Burn my eyes out, if you wish. Better me, this one, stupid blogger, than so worthy a hero among the Saints. But I will call to your mind the desert, and those who speak from it, warning us of this pride. Be very careful. Touch not the annointed of God. Do not despise his messengers, among whom is St. Augustine. Read the parable of the vineyard. Do you not see what you are doing? Repent. The Kingdom of God is near. Seek the prayers of St. Augustine, and ask his forgiveness, as I ask yours for offending you. I don’t know what else to do. And if I have a son, I will name him Augustine, just as Bishop Augustinos of Florina (Church of Greece) bears his name, because we need to defend our own, not join the heretics in twisting his words, which is only our own twisted understanding.
Lord unbend our minds. St. Augustine save us. I know that you are a saint, and that i am not, and that is more troubling to me than how someone has trifled with words you have written.
Friend, declare with us all and the infallible 5th Ecumenical Council that you “hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine…” Declare yourself among them, rather than seeking to drive a wedge among their names where none exists except in the vanity of your mind. Seek to understand them as they rightly understand each other. Do not speak against the whole church. Don’t you realize it? When you speak against any of the Ecumenical Councils, you speak against the whole church, or separate yourself from it, for we are the Church of the Seven Councils, and none of us can hold the True Faith or be saved who deny them, as St. Athanasius has said. To stand on Sunday and say the Ecumenical Creed means nothing unless you mean all that they mean in the Ecumenical Councils – it is from the Councils that the Creed is our Credo.
Do you not see what you have said and what you have done? Do you not see what you are doing?
To various among your other points:
For a photo of the beautiful St. Augustine Greek Orthodox Church in Vienna, go [here]. Our commenter implies that he cannot find any ancient churches dedicated to the saint, but this is to confuse Orthodoxy with antiquarianism. We Orthodox do not impute some greater degree of spirit to the ancient Church than to the recent. We are not antiquarians but the preservers of the living Faith.
The 6th Ecumenical Counsel, which is infallible, speaks of “most excellent and blessed Augustine”. The Council of Constantinople 1166: refers to “Saint Augustine”. In challenging the sainthood of St. Augustine, one is challenging very specific things, and not some vague inclinations, and most specifically not the knowledge level of these ancients (ironic, since presumably we are venerating the ancient). What is challenged is more significant and serious than the wisdom of the ancients or of the moderns, but perhaps the very Spirit of God.
See also St. Augustine’s “Retractions” which, at the end of his life, lay out things he wished he’d said differently and which show the development of his thought and, most specifically, not only that the format of his writing was speculative, but that humility won out in him, and piety, overall.
For a traditional Greek Icon of St. Augustine, labelled “Saint Augustine”, see the cover of Fr. Seraphim Rose’s book, “The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church”. Our commenter has also written scandalous things about Fr. Seraphim, a saintly man, after Fr. Seraphim refused to collaborate with him in attacking St. Augustine, but this is beside the point. There’s no need to go past the cover, by the standards the critic claims are so telling. And none anyway, if the icon is insufficient for you. An excellent discussion, including a letter by Fr. Seraphim is [here].
Some key points: The Orthodox do not regard the term “blessed” as truly distinct from “saint” or to show a rank or order among saints, but merely as distinguishing a different type of saint or perhaps a different reason for veneration. Also, the Orthodox do not regard someone a saint or not a saint solely on the basis of his thought, otherwise there are many saints that we would reject as such, but often on the basis of his piety, or his pious Christlike actions. So the basis of argument is, as ever, superfluouss. Lastly, there is a distinction between a saint and a father, but this is not a dialectical or categorical distinction, but in a positive way it is a distinction of how we respond to a saint, not a distinction in the saint himself and, in a negative way, it is merely an academic distinction (that is to say: a convention for academic communication). The tendency to confuse academic communication with religious attitude is itself a sign of “Augustinism”.
The charge often laid against the Orthodox, by which I mean those of us who, with the Church, as the Orthodox, without making war on the Church, venerate St. Augustine in peace, is that we are not anti-ecumenistic enough. This is a silly assumption, and an ad hominem.
It is not only quite possible to be deeply Orthodox and venerate St. Augustine, it is required. What the purveyors of ad hominem and guilt by association and begging the question have done, is redefine what it means to be ‘anti-ecumenistic’ by equating it with being anti-St. Augustine. Therefore, if you defend the saint, you may be Orthodox, but not really – you’re a member of the party that doesn’t get it and is destroying Orthodoxy – you occupy the unofficial category of being insufficiently severe. They don’t dare claim you’re not Orthodox (they do in some places, where they don’t “recognize” the rest of the Orthodox) – not too loudly, because removing the authority of the Church, which keeps St. Augustine on the calendar and the walls of our churches, and in the names of churches and bishops, and so on, would remove their own claim to be authoritative. They need us, like parasites. It’s kind of icky. But now of course, they can beg the question, saying that the Orthodox don’t venerate St. Augustine, because you and I are insufficiently Orthodox. Our commitment is suspect. We’re of an unofficially wrong attitude, though we have rejected none of the Church’s doctrines and only presumed to love her champions. And all pious men are champions of the Faith, because all piety is Orthodoxy, just as all those who attack the Church are impious, and so heretical, though every doctrine they allow is correct.
This division of piety from correctness, this opposition of the two, is so fundamentalist – evangelical – protestant that it boggles the imagination how any Orthodox person could go down such a mental trail. Not really, since they are displaying the very Augustinism they presume to critique, while St. Augustine himself is so catholic that he could never sit with such a mind, nor could any of the saints. Again, it’s kind of icky.
If their were a Byzantine or Russian form of quasi catholic protestantism, they’d fit right in. Fundamentally, they don’t believe in the Church. As one writer points out, they live in a time in which their trust has often been betrayed, and this is the extreme reaction. But brethren, it is necessary, first of all, that we hold the catholic Faith. Let us, though there are a great many other reasons, if for no other reason, hold fast to St. Augustine in order to hold fast to that. To do otherwise separates us from the piety and mind and authority and wisdom and Faith of the Church. If you reject her saints, you are not her child. Who is it who does not love the friends of God, who can be a friend of Christ? Repent. Convert. Leave off your heresy. And those who persuade you to be antagonists against Christ, depart from them.
Personally, and I’ve no wish to proselytize, I prefer the OCA, where you will find both ecumenists and traditionalists and everyone else living in relative harmony, but no faction is allowed to take over and build a private army of co-religionists. I would rather pray with ecumenists, and St. Augustine, and you my militant saint-hating brethren, than join anyone in moral and emotional schism. God defend the Church, at the gates of Hell, and all of us, and St. Augustine.
Some other nice material: [here] and [here]. The entry in the Prologue is on [June 15th].
Amen, Amen Amen!